It is therefore inappropriate, within the framework of these petitions, to prefer the position of the professionals presented by the Petitioners (or those presented by the Petitioners who wished to join, who sought to challenge the position of the Petitioners) over the position of the professionals in the IDF. This is all the more so, given that the professional position on which the competent administrative authority is based was formulated by a professional committee of experts, which was appointed for precisely this purpose.
- 00Hence the second argument, which relates to the use of the model data as a prerequisite. At the current point in time, this is no longer valid, since, as noted, the IDF has decided to switch to using the model as a decision support factor, instead of a binding threshold condition. Moreover, it was decided to formulate a similar model for men as well, so that at this stage there can be no argument that the very use of the model, in its current form, harms equality. In this context, I would also like to add an emphasis emphasized by the state's respondents that the purpose of using the model as a decision support data is to improve the assessment of the chances of suitability for a particular position, and more importantly - to reduce the probability of injuries and bodily injuries among candidates for security service. Contrary to what may be implied by the arguments of counsel for the Petitioners, this purpose is certainly appropriate, and it derives directly from the IDF's responsibility towards the health of its soldiers, the importance of which is indisputable. Actions taken for the purpose of exercising this responsibility are not reprehensible; The opposite is true.
0
- In the margins, I will note with regard to the arguments raised by the Petitioners' counsel in a notice he submitted on January 4, 2026, regarding the manner in which the Yahalam fighters are integrated into the unit (in a designated platoon), and as to the fact that they are destined to receive a different pin, that these arguments greatly broaden the front of the dispute, and go far beyond the boundaries of the order nisi, so that the petition in question is not the appropriate hostel for their hearing. More than necessary, I would like to emphasize that in the notice of counsel for the petitioners it was written that the decision to grant a different pin - which is the one at the heart of the notice that was submitted - is still in the process of being approved, and has not yet officially entered into effect, so that in any case, there is no room for judicial review of it at the current point in time (moreover, these arguments were based mainly on media publications, which, as is well known, they cannot As a rule, to serve as an appropriate factual basis in a legal proceeding. See, for example: High Court of Justice 427-10-25 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. Government of Israel, paragraphs 56-57 [Nevo] (December 28, 2025); High Court of Justice 4936/24 Ben Meir v. Ministerial Committee for the General Security Service, para. 23 [Nevo] (December 14, 2025)).
The Experiment Model
- Another central argument of the Petitioners relates to the decision to promote the integration of women in combat units by way of experiences. According to them, this decision is extremely unreasonable, and there is no need, and no point, to adopt such a policy. This is the case, both with regard to the special units, with regard to the maneuver's armor, and with regard to the other units. I cannot accept this argument. At the outset, I will note that this argument exceeds the scope of the conditional order, in which the respondents were asked to explain why experiments were not opened in the various units (with regard to the maneuvering armor, the experiment was one of the two alternatives detailed in the order). In fact, this is enough for me to reject it, since, as is well known, after an order nisi has been granted, the boundaries of the dispute are limited to the scope of the dispute (see, for example: High Court of Justice 2335/19 Medical Cannabis Association v. Ministry of Health, para. 18 [Nevo] (November 16, 2021); High Court of Justice 474/21 Mahamid v. Attorney General, para. 7 [Nevo] (December 4, 2022)). In any event, even if I would assume that this procedural obstacle can be overcome, I am of the opinion that even on the merits, the argument should not be accepted.
- On the positive level, the starting point is that "this court does not place its discretion under the consideration of the competent authority, and this rule applies even more strongly when it comes to the supervision of this court over professional-planning decisions of the military authorities" (High Court of Justice 734/83 Shine v. Minister of Defense, IsrSC 38(3) 393, 399 (1984)). This is all the more so when we are dealing with judicial review of the military's policy of staffing military positions, for which it was determined that it is "characterized by a special degree of restraint" (HCJ 6840/01 Peltzman v. Chief of the General Staff, IsrSC 60(3) 121, 133 (2005)). Given that in our case, the person who made the decision was the Chief of Staff, and we know that "the more senior the official in the administrative authority that is required to make the professional decision, the less the scope of this court's intervention" (HCJ 3777/15 Ziad v. Chief of the General Staff, para. 12 [Nevo] (May 4, 2016)).
- In the Miller case, the court explicitly discussed the possibility of integrating women into a pilot course by way of a controlled and limited experience, which would enable the learning of lessons and an examination of potential negative consequences, and therefore also improve the chances of success of the move. This is what Justice Matza noted in this context:
"As long as the Air Force does not allow the experimental absorption of women in the pilot profession, and as long as it does not systematically and intelligently monitor their performance in the course and in the units, we will never be able to know whether, under the special conditions that prevail in our country, women are likely to successfully integrate into the air crews. [...] Such an attempt can be based on a small number of candidates who will be gradually absorbed over a period that will be sufficiently long enough to enable conclusions to be drawn as to the success rate in the regular units and in the reserve units" (ibid., pp. 114-115; Emphasis added - v. S.)